Chaganty Katamraju vs Madavarappu Paripurnanandam

Rajamannar, Officiating C.J.

This is an application to amend the description of item 1 of the plaint schedule and the decree schedule in a suit which was ultimately disposed of

by this Court in S.A. No. 1607 of 1945, by substituting for old survey No. 23 corresponding to Re-Survey No. 17/1 Re-survey No. 23/1

corresponding to revision Survey No. 27/1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit which was for recovery of several items of property on the

allegation that they were properties which originally belonged to one Chelamayya and the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were the nearest

reversions of the said Chelamayya. The third defendant was made a party as evidently interested in item 1, and the case proceeded in both the

lower Courts and in this Court on the footing that the third defendant was interested in item 1 of the plaint schedule. After the disposal of the

second appeal by this Court, the plaintiff discovered that an error had crept into the description of the first item. The description in the plaint

schedule was that it comprised 1 acre 35 cents out of R.S. No. 17/1 corresponding to Re-Survey No. 23. The correct description should have

been Re-Survey No. 23/1 corresponding to Revision Survey No. 27/1. That this is the correct description is clear from the sale deed in favour of

the third defendant and the written statement filed by him in the suit. This mistake in the plaint schedule was never brought to the attention of the

Court at any time, and the litigation proceeded on the footing that what the plaintiff was claiming was the property in the possession of the third

defendant. It was not for instance alleged in any of the written statements that item 1 was a property which did not belong to the estate of the last

male holder.

This application is strongly opposed by the third defendant on two grounds : (1) that there has been very long delay, and (2) that the Court is not

competent to grant this application for amendment of the plaint schedule after the disposal of the suit. As regards the first objection, undoubtedly

there has been delay, if by delay is meant the time which has elapsed since the institution of the suit. But as I have already mentioned, this mistake

evidently escaped the attend in of parties till very recently. There is therefore no avoidable delay on the part of the petitioner. It has not been shown

that on account of this delay circumstances have intervened which would make it inequitable to grant the application. It is difficult to follow the

other objection. What is now sought in this application is not an amendment of the pleadings as such; it is really an application to correct an error

which has crept also into the decrees. The wide language of Sections 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, would in my opinion, cover a

case like the present. The correction of an error need not always amount to an amendment of a pleading. I do not think it correct to treat this

application as an application under Order 6, Rule 17. The passage cited by the learned advocate for the respondent from Halsbury''s Laws of

England, volume 26, at page 56 namely,

An amendment may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even after trial, but not after judgment, except on appeals

evidently refers to a material and substantial amendment of the pleading. At page 57 occurs the following statement of the law which is in terms

identical with Sections 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code,

The Court or a Judge may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be thought just, amend any defect or error in any

proceedings... The Court or a Judge may also at any time correct clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising therein from accidental

omissions.

The application in this case is only to correct such an error, and as on the merits there is no valid objection to the grant of this relief, I am not

impressed by any technical objection.

The petition is allowed.